Bar Admissions

Drew is an experienced patent litigator and trial attorney. He focuses his intellectual property practice in patent litigation, licensing and strategic counseling, with a litigation focus on Section 337 unfair trade and import investigations at the International Trade Commission. Drew has participated in all phases of numerous ITC investigations involving some of the largest technology companies in the world. He has first-chair experience in multiple ITC evidentiary hearings, and regularly leads large litigation teams throughout all stages of ITC proceedings. Drew also represents clients in patent infringement cases in federal district courts across the country. As part of a comprehensive and global approach to patent licensing and enforcement, Drew also assists clients in coordinating foreign patent enforcement activity.

In addition to litigation, Drew provides strategic counseling to help clients protect and leverage IP rights to maximize their value, including in licensing and sale transactions. He has participated in negotiating and closing numerous complex IP-related agreements, including multiparty transactions involving thousands of U.S. and foreign patents, and has coordinated related transactional diligence.

Drew’s pro bono work includes representing a Jamaican national seeking political asylum due to violent persecution based on sexual orientation, and representing clients of the Mintz Levin Domestic Violence Program in obtaining and extending 209A abuse prevention orders on behalf of victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.

Prior to joining Mintz Levin, Drew practiced with a national law firm. Before that, he clerked for Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice Barbara A. Lenk (then of the Massachusetts Appeals Court). In law school he served as a judicial intern to the late Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and as a legal intern with the Major Crimes Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts, during which time he worked on multiple civil and criminal jury trials.

Representative Matters

International Trade Commission

Certain Memory Modules and Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (337-TA-1023); Certain Memory Modules and Components Thereof (337-TA-1089) Represent Complainant Netlist, Inc., a California memory module company, in the ITC asserting eight patents against the Korean-based memory giant SK hynix. The technology claimed by the asserted patents is essential to the JEDEC DDR4 RDIMM and LRDIMM standards, which are implemented by the accused imported products. The respondents are asserting novel RAND defenses in the ITC, and in two co-pending cases involving the same and related patents in the District Court for the Central District of California.

Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Consumer Products Containing the Same (337-TA-1044) Represent Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) as complainant in the ITC asserting patents covering graphics processing technology employed by smart devices such as televisions and handsets. Respondents include LG Electronics, VIZIO, MediaTek, and Sigma Designs. The evidentiary hearing is scheduled for early December 2017.

Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Vehicles Containing Same (337-TA-984) Represented owner of portfolio of graphics processing and microprocessor patents as Complainant in an ITC investigation adverse to a number of automotive manufacturers, and infotainment system and chip suppliers. Respondents include Honda, Toyota, BMW, Audi, Volkswagen, NVIDIA, Texas Instruments, Renesas, Harman International, and Fujitsu-Ten. The investigation instituted in January of 2016 and resolved favorably prior to the conclusion of expert discovery in August of 2016.

Certain Communications or Computing Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-925) Represented owner of portfolio of communications and computing patents from former enterprise communications business unit of large multinational innovation company. An ITC investigation was instituted in August 2014 as to respondent entities Apple, Samsung Electronics, LG Electronics and HTC Corporation. Google participated as an intervenor. The investigation resolved prior to evidentiary hearing in June of 2015.

Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884) Represented owners of the patent portfolio of the original Silicon Graphics, now known as Graphics Properties Holdings, as complainant in the ITC. Investigation was instituted in June 2013 and among the respondent entities were Panasonic, Toshiba, Vizio, and ZTE. Most respondents settled. After an evidentiary hearing held over several days in May 2014, on August 29, 2014 Mintz Levin successfully obtained a recommendation for a Limited Exclusion Order against the remaining respondent, which chose to settle while Commission review of the Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Determination was pending.

Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices and Products Containing Same (337-TA-836) Represented owner of the patent portfolio of the former Silicon Graphics as complainant in the ITC, and as plaintiff in multiple parallel District of Delaware cases. Cases were filed between late 2011 and early 2012, and all were resolved by the end of January 2013. The technology at issue relates to LCD panels, central processor units, graphics processing units, and other microprocessor technology. Successfully licensed all respondents, including some of the largest and most recognized names in the converged device space — Apple, LG, Research in Motion, Samsung, and Sony.

Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-804) Represented California-based complainant (plaintiff) and its UK parent, companies that make LED lighting systems for use in film and TV production, at the International Trade Commission. After an evidentiary hearing, the ITC handed down its Final Initial Determination of infringement on September 7, 2012. On January 17, 2013, the ITC issued a General Exclusion Order (GEO) against respondents based in both China and the United States. The result in this case is particularly notable because it is rare for the ITC to issue a GEO.

Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (337-TA-726) Represented complainant in three-patent ITC case. Filed in June 2010 against converged device manufacturers and focused on digital camera technology found in cell phones, laptop computers, and personal digital assistants, the matter went to trial in April 2011. The result was successful licenses with three out of four respondents, including recognized leaders in the electronics device manufacturing space.

Federal District Courts

Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. v. ASUS Computer International, Inc. et al. (D. Del. – 1:13-cv-864) Represented the former Silicon Graphics in numerous litigations against multinational electronics companies in the District of Delaware alleging infringement of novel graphics, microprocessor, and LCD patents. All of these cases settled favorably. In the ASUS matter, Mintz Levin persuaded the court to adopt the “stream-of-commerce” theory of personal jurisdiction despite conflicting precedent in the District of Delaware, and ASUS’s motion to dismiss was denied in its entirety.

Japan Cash Machine Co. Ltd. et al v. MEI, Inc. (D.N.J. – 1:09cv351) Represented a bill validator supplier adverse to its principal competitor in the Federal District of New Jersey and in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding patents directed to antifraud technology.

Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc. v. Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. (D. Mass. – 4:10-cv-40124) Represented a clinical diagnostic testing supplier appealing a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to the Federal District of Massachusetts regarding the priority of invention of patent claims covering nucleic acid hybridization assays. Obtained reversal of adverse decision by the BPAI on behalf of client.

Pro Bono

AIDS Support Group of Cape Cod, Inc. v. Town of Barnstable & Others, 477 Mass. 296 (2017) Co-authored an amicus brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on behalf of approximately 30 public health-related amici, including some of the largest hospital systems and health insurers in Massachusetts. In a case of first impression, the unanimous SJC agreed with the plaintiff and the amici that there is no restriction in the law on privately-run hypodermic needle access programs, which are designed to limit the spread of blood-borne diseases such as HIV and Hepatitis C.

Drew is an experienced patent litigator and trial attorney. He focuses his intellectual property practice in patent litigation, licensing and strategic counseling, with a litigation focus on Section 337 unfair trade and import investigations at the International Trade Commission. Drew has participated in all phases of numerous ITC investigations involving some of the largest technology companies in the world. He has first-chair experience in multiple ITC evidentiary hearings, and regularly leads large litigation teams throughout all stages of ITC proceedings. Drew also represents clients in patent infringement cases in federal district courts across the country. As part of a comprehensive and global approach to patent licensing and enforcement, Drew also assists clients in coordinating foreign patent enforcement activity.

In addition to litigation, Drew provides strategic counseling to help clients protect and leverage IP rights to maximize their value, including in licensing and sale transactions. He has participated in negotiating and closing numerous complex IP-related agreements, including multiparty transactions involving thousands of U.S. and foreign patents, and has coordinated related transactional diligence.

Drew’s pro bono work includes representing a Jamaican national seeking political asylum due to violent persecution based on sexual orientation, and representing clients of the Mintz Levin Domestic Violence Program in obtaining and extending 209A abuse prevention orders on behalf of victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.

Prior to joining Mintz Levin, Drew practiced with a national law firm. Before that, he clerked for Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice Barbara A. Lenk (then of the Massachusetts Appeals Court). In law school he served as a judicial intern to the late Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and as a legal intern with the Major Crimes Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts, during which time he worked on multiple civil and criminal jury trials.

Representative Matters

International Trade Commission

Certain Memory Modules and Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (337-TA-1023); Certain Memory Modules and Components Thereof (337-TA-1089) Represent Complainant Netlist, Inc., a California memory module company, in the ITC asserting eight patents against the Korean-based memory giant SK hynix. The technology claimed by the asserted patents is essential to the JEDEC DDR4 RDIMM and LRDIMM standards, which are implemented by the accused imported products. The respondents are asserting novel RAND defenses in the ITC, and in two co-pending cases involving the same and related patents in the District Court for the Central District of California.

Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Consumer Products Containing the Same (337-TA-1044) Represent Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) as complainant in the ITC asserting patents covering graphics processing technology employed by smart devices such as televisions and handsets. Respondents include LG Electronics, VIZIO, MediaTek, and Sigma Designs. The evidentiary hearing is scheduled for early December 2017.

Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Vehicles Containing Same (337-TA-984) Represented owner of portfolio of graphics processing and microprocessor patents as Complainant in an ITC investigation adverse to a number of automotive manufacturers, and infotainment system and chip suppliers. Respondents include Honda, Toyota, BMW, Audi, Volkswagen, NVIDIA, Texas Instruments, Renesas, Harman International, and Fujitsu-Ten. The investigation instituted in January of 2016 and resolved favorably prior to the conclusion of expert discovery in August of 2016.

Certain Communications or Computing Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-925) Represented owner of portfolio of communications and computing patents from former enterprise communications business unit of large multinational innovation company. An ITC investigation was instituted in August 2014 as to respondent entities Apple, Samsung Electronics, LG Electronics and HTC Corporation. Google participated as an intervenor. The investigation resolved prior to evidentiary hearing in June of 2015.

Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884) Represented owners of the patent portfolio of the original Silicon Graphics, now known as Graphics Properties Holdings, as complainant in the ITC. Investigation was instituted in June 2013 and among the respondent entities were Panasonic, Toshiba, Vizio, and ZTE. Most respondents settled. After an evidentiary hearing held over several days in May 2014, on August 29, 2014 Mintz Levin successfully obtained a recommendation for a Limited Exclusion Order against the remaining respondent, which chose to settle while Commission review of the Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Determination was pending.

Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices and Products Containing Same (337-TA-836) Represented owner of the patent portfolio of the former Silicon Graphics as complainant in the ITC, and as plaintiff in multiple parallel District of Delaware cases. Cases were filed between late 2011 and early 2012, and all were resolved by the end of January 2013. The technology at issue relates to LCD panels, central processor units, graphics processing units, and other microprocessor technology. Successfully licensed all respondents, including some of the largest and most recognized names in the converged device space — Apple, LG, Research in Motion, Samsung, and Sony.

Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-804) Represented California-based complainant (plaintiff) and its UK parent, companies that make LED lighting systems for use in film and TV production, at the International Trade Commission. After an evidentiary hearing, the ITC handed down its Final Initial Determination of infringement on September 7, 2012. On January 17, 2013, the ITC issued a General Exclusion Order (GEO) against respondents based in both China and the United States. The result in this case is particularly notable because it is rare for the ITC to issue a GEO.

Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (337-TA-726) Represented complainant in three-patent ITC case. Filed in June 2010 against converged device manufacturers and focused on digital camera technology found in cell phones, laptop computers, and personal digital assistants, the matter went to trial in April 2011. The result was successful licenses with three out of four respondents, including recognized leaders in the electronics device manufacturing space.

Federal District Courts

Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. v. ASUS Computer International, Inc. et al. (D. Del. – 1:13-cv-864) Represented the former Silicon Graphics in numerous litigations against multinational electronics companies in the District of Delaware alleging infringement of novel graphics, microprocessor, and LCD patents. All of these cases settled favorably. In the ASUS matter, Mintz Levin persuaded the court to adopt the “stream-of-commerce” theory of personal jurisdiction despite conflicting precedent in the District of Delaware, and ASUS’s motion to dismiss was denied in its entirety.

Japan Cash Machine Co. Ltd. et al v. MEI, Inc. (D.N.J. – 1:09cv351) Represented a bill validator supplier adverse to its principal competitor in the Federal District of New Jersey and in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding patents directed to antifraud technology.

Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc. v. Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. (D. Mass. – 4:10-cv-40124) Represented a clinical diagnostic testing supplier appealing a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to the Federal District of Massachusetts regarding the priority of invention of patent claims covering nucleic acid hybridization assays. Obtained reversal of adverse decision by the BPAI on behalf of client.

Pro Bono

AIDS Support Group of Cape Cod, Inc. v. Town of Barnstable & Others, 477 Mass. 296 (2017) Co-authored an amicus brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on behalf of approximately 30 public health-related amici, including some of the largest hospital systems and health insurers in Massachusetts. In a case of first impression, the unanimous SJC agreed with the plaintiff and the amici that there is no restriction in the law on privately-run hypodermic needle access programs, which are designed to limit the spread of blood-borne diseases such as HIV and Hepatitis C.

Industries

Create PDF

Include:

Publications

Alerts & Advisories

Industry Reports & Newsletters

Published Articles

Speaking Engagements

Newsroom

Press Releases

In The News

NOTICE:
Please note that contacting Mintz Levin by email, telephone or facsimile will not establish
an attorney-client relationship, obligate us to act as your attorney or respond to you regardless
of the content of your communication. Completion of Mintz Levin's new client and new matter intake
protocol, including without limitation the firm’s conflicts checking process and an engagement letter,
is necessary to establish an attorney-client relationship. Absent a current attorney-client relationship
with Mintz Levin, any information or documents communicated or transmitted by you to Mintz Levin will not
be treated as confidential, secret or protected in any way. If you are not a current client of Mintz Levin,
please do not send any confidential information to us through this web site or otherwise concerning any
potential or actual legal matter you have. Before providing any confidential information to us, you must
obtain permission to do so from one of the firm’s lawyers.

Email This Page

Your privacy is important to us. Mintz Levin uses the names,
e-mail addresses, and notes you provide only to transmit the information you would like to send to us through this page.
We do not sell the information collected through this website to anyone. If you are not a current Mintz Levin client,
please do not include any information that you or another party considers confidential on this form.
Please also see our Disclaimer & Privacy Statement.